Biodiversity in the Philippines

In fulfillment of its obligations as one of the contracting parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity signed by 154 nations at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, the Philippines undertook an assessment of its biodiversity through a grant from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to the implementing agency, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Based on this comprehensive assessment of the current status of the country's biodiversity, the problems, threats, issues and gaps were identified. These formed the basis for a national strategy and action plan, whose goals are the conservation, sustainable utilization, and equitable sharing of the benefits of biodiversity by all Filipinos, present and future.

The flora of the Philippines is composed of at least 13,500 species which represent five percent of the world's flora. The ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms and agiosperms constitute 22.5 percent of the Malesian and 3.88 percent of the world's vascular flora. Twenty-five genera of the plants are endemic to the Philippines. Among these are the Rubiaceae family (four genera), the Asclepiadaceae and Orchidaceae (three each), the Melastomataceae, Loranthaceae, Zingiberaceae, and Sapindaceae (two each) and Compositae, Euphorbiaceae, Leguminosae, Rutaceae and Urticaceae (one each), and two endemic fern genera. Nineteen of these are monotypic. Among flowering plant families, the Orchidaceae, Rubiaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Myrtaceae andMoraceae have the greatest number of indigenous and endemic species, while Graminae, Liliaceae, Ulmaceae, Leguminosae, and Rutaceae have lower endemism. The gymnosperms are poorly represented with only 33 species and 18 percent endemism while there are 1,011 species of ferns and fern allies with 30 percent endemism. Recorded are about 506 species of mosses with 23 percent endemism. Liverworts and hornworts number to 518 species while more than 700 species of fungi and 790 species of lichens are on record. A further 5-8% of the country's flora are believed to be still unidentified.

Faunal Diversity in Philippine Forests

n estimated 1,084 species of terrestrial vertebrates are found in Philippine forests, of which 45 percent are endemic. Of these, 179 species are mammals with 61 percent endemism, 15 of which are still in the process of being named. There are 558 species of birds are mammals with 61 percent endemism, 15 of which are still in the process of being named. There are 558 species of birds recorded in the country with 31 percent endemism, 38 percent of which are confined to single islands. About 71 percent are known to breed in a diversity of habitats from beach to montane forests but there are no breeding information on 40 percent of these breeding species. There are 252 species of reptiles wity 63 percent endemism. There are four major subgroups of reptiles: the lizards (126 species, 75 percent endemism), snakes (112 species, 54 percent endemism), turtles (10 species, 10 percent endemism), and crocodiles (two species, 50 percent endemism). A total of 96 amphibian species are recognized taxonomically in the country, namely: with 53 endemism. Most are also single-island endmics. Of these, four were introduced species in the country, namely: the marine toad (Bufo marinus), the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana, the leopard frog (R. Tigrina), and the Taiwanese frog (R. rugolosa). The marine toad was introduced in the 1930s to control sugarcane beetle infestation while the last three were introduced for breeding and export as food. These species have escaped from captivity and are now widespread throughout the country. Their impact on indigenous species and the ecosystem, in general, are unknown. The number of species of millipedes and centipedes is 54 and 44, respectively, while more than 20,000 species of insects have been identified. However, only the lacewings, fleas, caddisflies, two-winged flies, and butterfly species have been fully inventoried. There are 341 species of spiders found in rice and non-rice habitats, which is less than two percent of the world's total. However, many more species remain to be discovered and identified, since more than 75 percent of these are new to science and live on habitats that have not been fully explored.

So far, 2,782 species of mollusks have been identified in all of the countrys ecosystems. However, the level of endemism is undetermined but estimated to range from high to very high. The level of endemism of invertebrates is generally poorly known but is suspected to be high. Endemism ranged from 44 percent to 87 percent with a mean of 64 percent for the six insect orders inventoried. Eighty six species of birds found in the country are under various forms of threat, from being vulnerable to being extinct in the wild. Of these, 45 species are either extinct in the wild, critical, or endangered. Forty of the 45 aforementioned species are endemic, which makes the Philippines the number one country in the world in terms of number of threatened endemic species of birds. In contrast, 30 species of terrestrial mammals are classified under various threat categories, from being rare to being endangered, while only two species of amphibians and three species of reptiles in the Philippine forests are classified under various threatened categories. This number is definitely a conservative estimate as little information about these three groups, as a whole, is known. The most threatened endemic mammal is the tamaraw, Bubalus mindorensis, while the most threatened endemic bird is the Philippine eagle, Pithecophaga jefferyii. Both species are estimated to have a wild population of less than 200 each. Both are also the subject of captive breeding studies with very limited success.

Diversity in Wetlands
hilippine wetlands are endowed with a rich diversity of flora (1,616 species) and fauna (3,308 species). These consist of algae (1,177 species), aquatic macrophytes (439 species), mollusks (728 species), insects (1,764 species), other arthropods (498 species), fishes (208 species), and waterfowls (110 species). These species represent the dominant components of the complex food webs that have evolved in the different wetland types. Sponges cnidarians, free-living flatworms, annelids, and nudibranchs were not included in these inventories.

Diversity in Marine Ecosystem

t least 4,951 species of marine plants and animals are found in Philippine coastal and marine habitats. Fishes, non-coral invertebrates and seaweeds constitute the greatest numbers. One thousand three hundred ninety six species (1,396) or 28 percent are economically important, 403 or 10 percent are flagship species, while 145 species of 2.4 percent are under threat. Fifteen species are listed as endangered. Sixteen species or 0.3 percent of the fishes are endemic, while 123 or 2.2 percent are known indicators of environmental conditions. Coral reefs are by far the most diverse or species rich with 3,967 species. Seagrass beds follow with 481 species and then mangroves with 370 species. Soft bottom communities have the lowest recorded species richness with 70 species. The 381 coral species and 1,030 species of fish recorded in Philippine coral reefs ranks the country second to the great Barrier Reef in coral and coral reef fish diversity. There are 16 taxa of seagrasses recorded in the Philippines making the country the second highest in terms of seagrass species richness in the world.

Diversity in Agriculture
total of 1,210 species of plants are relevant to agriculture with a variety of uses and values. Some have food values (477 species), feed values (363 species), medicinal/herbal values (627 species), and ornamental values (201 species). In addition, 35 species are considered as fiber crops while an undetermined number have industrial importance. The National Plant Germplasm Resources Laboratory (NPGRL) in UP Los Banos, as of December 1994, maintains a total of 32,446 accessions of 396 species, while the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PHILRICE), as of 1992, maintains 12 species of wild rice from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) germplasm center and from its collections in the different parts of the country. The germplasm collection of the National Tobacco Authority (NTA) has increased to 488 accessions in 1995. The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) reported that between 1980 and 1991, there was a substantial decrease in the population of 61 economically important crops such as coconut, coffee, fiber crops particularly abaca, kenaf, pia, and ramie, and mulberry while banana, cacao, rubber, and ipil-ipil dramatically increased in population. On the other hand, the domestic animal population in 1991 totaled 2,766,000 carabaos, 1,991,000 cattle, 286,000 horses, 7479,000 hogs, 2,403,000 goats, and 56,000 other domesticated species. Aggregate poultry population, which includes chicken, ducks, quails, geese, turkeys, and pigeons, total 101,235,000 heads. Only carabaos showed a substantial decrease in numbers.

Species and Ecosystem Diversity in Protected Areas

There are 290 sites all over the country that are classified under various categories of protected areas status such as: National Parks National Marine Parks and National Marine Reserves (67) Game Refuge and Bird Sanctuaries (8) Wilderness Areas (16) Watershed Areas (85)

Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserves (27) Tourist Zones and Marine Reserves (56) others (35) Ten of these sites have been identified as the priority sites for the implementation of Republic Act 7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Law. These include:

Batanes Protected Landscapes and Seascapes (BPLS) Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park (NSMNP) Subic-Bataan Natural Park (SBNP) Apo Reef Marine Natural Park (ARMNP) Mt. Canlaon Natural Park (MCNP) Turtle Island Marine Natural Park (TIMNP) Mt. Kitanglad Natural Park (MKNP) Mt. Apo Natural Park (MANP) Siargao Island Wildlife Sanctuary (SIWS) Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary (AMWS) These ten sites were chosen because of the high level of species and ecosystem diversity and endemism in some (e.g, MANP, MKNP, NSMNP), unique ecosystems in others (e.g., NSMNP, TIMP, BPLS), and ecolological roles and importance (e.g, AMWS, SIWS, NSMNP) or a combination of these values (e.g. NSMNP, SIWS, MKNP).

Rates of Change

The comprehensive assessment of the countrys biodiversity shows an impressive record in terms of species diversity and endemism. But this does not reflect the extent of biodiversity loss that has occurred in the last decade or so in the different ecosystems of the country. Depending on when the invetory was conducted, the current species diversity may reflect either the current level or the remnant of a much richer diversity in the past. A third scenario could assume that more species remain unexplored/ undiscovered and could constitute even twice the scenario could assume the currently known number. If the last scenario reflects the real situation, then it is a race against time to understand the actual extent of existing biodiversity as part of our natural heritage before it disappears due to the rapidly expanding population and its concomitant overexploitation of resources that brings about a negative chain of reactions, e.g., tenurial problems, denudation of ecosystem and watershed areas, soil erosion, siltation, organic and chemical pollution, eutrophication, mangrove conversion, breakdown in food chain checks and balances. In many instances, the extent of habitat loss will provide a good measure of biodiversity loss. To illustrate, the forest cover in the country has been reduced from more than 50 percent to less than 24 percent over a 40 year period (1948 to 1987); only about 5 percent of the countrys coral reefs remains in excellent condition, 30-50 percent of its seagrass beds in the last 50 years, and about 80 percent of its mangrove areas in the last 75 years, have been lost. It has been estimated that about 50 percent of national parks are no longer biologically important.

Strategy and Action Plans

In view of the problems and concerns which constantly threaten the future of the country's biodiversity and in consonance with the Convention on Biological Diversity's objectives of conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of the benefits of the country's biodiversity, a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan with modular programs and projects and corresponding resource requirements was formulated. Six strategies and action plans were developed, anchored on the framework of man being at the center of ecosystems and resource interaction and the need to balance the utilization driven policy which entails modification of biodiversity for human needs with the conservation driven policy for maintaining natural biodiversity. These strategies and their respective thrusts are as follows: I. Expanding and Improving Knowledge on the Characteristics, Uses, and Values of Biological Diversity,

II. III.

IV. V. VI.

Enhancing and Integrating Existing and Planned Biodiversity Conservation Efforts with Emphasis on In-Situ Activities, Formulating an Integrated Policy and Legislative Framework for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits of Biological Diversity, Strengthening Capacities for Integrating and Institutionalizing Biodiversity Conservation and Management, Mobilizing and Integrated Information, Education and Communication (IEC) System for Biodiversity Conservation, and Advocating Stronger International Cooperation on Biodiversity Conservation and Management.

Strategy I has three thrusts: Augmenting knowledge of species and ecosystem diversity, Estimating current uses and values of biological diversity, and Underscoring the need to hedge for the future. The generation, expansion and updating of information on the extent of biological wealth is a basic requirement for biodiversity conservation and management planning. The need to characterize species in terms of conservation status, e.g. extinct, threatened, vulnerable, etc., is urgent for prioritizing conservation efforts. To maximize use, knowledge generated should be made accessible. Furthermore, the conventional valuation of the production of biological resources fails to account for depletion and loss of species, degradation of ecosystems, and loss of biological diversity. In most cases, highly valued biological resources are limited to the economically important or those that sustain human life. Bur from an ecological perspective, every species has an ecological niche that is necessary in sustaining other lifeforms. The lack of information on the ecological linkages among species or ecosystems, and hence, their monetary equivalents results in undervaluation and their subsequent degradation. To some indigenous communities, some biological resources or sites are sacred and a source of cultural identity. This type of value attached to a resource contributes to its preservation or sustainable use. More fundamentally, local communities and especially indigenous peoples have a rich repository of knowledge and practices about the natural environment that contribute to biodiversity conservation. Many of these communities occupy territories, particularly forest areas, that harbor a variety of species. The cultural and spiritual values attached to biological resources by indigenous peoples constitute a part of the worth of these resources.

Wild life forms have been the sources of genes, chemicals, and elements to produce desirable attributes in plants and animals, to concoct drugs and medicines, and to develop products of commercial importance. The value of any living species may be accurately reflected not only in its current use but in its potential use as well. The strategy contains three major programs, namely Biodiversity Inventory, Ecosystems Mapping and Data Validation, and Socio-Economic Studies. The Biodiversity Inventory aims to fill the data gap concerning lack of baseline information, some of which are outdated (e.g., flora and fauna) while in others the data available are insufficient (e.g., microbial diversity). Sixteen projects are proposed that runs across the five biodiversity sectors. Five projects are identified under the Ecosystems Mapping and Data Validation Program which aims to address a major data gap in biodiversity conservation work, i.e., the lack of accurate, updated, ad ground-truthed maps of where the country's biodiversity are located. The Socio-Economic Studies Program has five major projects. One aims to document and incorporate indigenous knowledge systems and practices on biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, while another project aims to do a valuation and accounting of direct and indirect goods and services from biodiversity and bioresources. The three remaining projects focus on demography and marine resources valuation. Strategy II has three thrusts, namely: Evaluating on-going and identifying in-situ and ex-situ biodiversity conservation and management approaches, Consolidating research and development programs for ex-situ and in-situ conservation of biodiversity, and Institutionalizing a nationwide network of conservation centers. Various in-situ and ex-situ conservation programs are being undertaken, even while new one are being proposed and planned. The effectiveness of these programs in conserving biodiversity needs to be evaluated in terms of the preservation, restoration and expansion of habitats, enhancement of the survival of target species, reduction or elimination of the threats to habitat destruction and species loss, among others. Other potential management approaches (e.g., indigenous management practices, ecotourism, and other community-based approaches) in in-situ and ex-situ conservation need to be investigated and incorporated into biodiversity planning.

Other areas of research and development badly needed are those on interhabitat connectivity. By consolidating these activities, more focused and rigorous research and development programs can be pursued. There are two major programs under this strategy: the In-situ Conservation Program and the Ex-situ Conservation Program. Under the In-situ Conservation Program, the protection of habitats is deemed as the most effective way of conserving biodiversity, while rehabilitation and enhancement of damaged and critical habitats are equally important. The Ex-situ Conservation Programs premised on the following principle: ex-situ conservation will be undertaken only as a last resort and only to complement in-situ conservation efforts. Four projects are proposed. There are two thrusts under Strategy III, namely: Aligning policies governing the utilization of biological diversity by pursuing a systematic policy evaluation, and Devising policies that promote proper, sustainable and equitable utilization of biological diversity. Policy makers and law makers should influence/force resource users to act in consonance with the limits of biological resource regeneration, and indirect users to properly account for the consequences of their activities on the resources and the environment. Environmental and ecological considerations should not take a back seat in favor of development initiatives. Preferential access by indigenous peoples and marginalized users should be explicit and incorporated as a component of resource utilization policies. Projects proposed under Strategy lll are: 1. the Codification of Laws Related to Biodiversity; 2. the Development of a Realistic System of Access Fees, Incentives and Penalties for the Utilization of Biological Resources and Biodiversity; 3. the Identification, Delineation, and Management of ancestral Domain. Three proposed activities are also proposed under Strategy lll. One activity is on Policy Advocacy, while another is on the Formulation of Guidelines on Land Use Planning and Biodiversity Conservation and Integration thereof in the Plans of Concerned Agencies. A third activity is in the Assessment of Protected Areas under the Initial Components of NIPAS.

Strategy IV has two thrusts, namely: (1) Integrating the planning, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of biodiversity conservation and management in government and non-governmental sectors, and (2) Strengthening human resource capability in biodiversity conservation and management. Two programs are proposed. These are the Institutional Capacity Building Program and the Human Resources Development Program. The Institutional Capacity Building Program aims to identify the required functions of government and nongovernment institutions in biodiversity conservation and management. An assessment of current capacities of these institutions in carrying out such functions shall be done. Areas of weakness will be addressed by projects and activities specified in this program. Three projects and two activities are identified, the most important of which is the creation of a Philippine Biodiversity Center. Two corollary activities are included in this project. One is the establishment of the Philippine Marine Biodiversity Conservation Committee (PMBCC) while another activity is the expansion of the membership of the Subcommittee on Biodiversity of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development. The Human Resource Development Program has two projects: one aims to develop the technical capacity in Biodiversity Conservation Planning in the private sector and the other in the government sector. One principal root cause of environmental degradation is incomplete appreciation of the environment and its biodiversity resources because of the highly "instrumentalized" educational system that deprives students of the opportunity to directly interact with the environment and biodiversity resources. Thus, there is a need to establish a curriculum drafting committee tasked to formulate curricula and develop courses that incorporate biodiversity conservation concerns in secondary and tertiary levels, validate the incorporation of these into existing education programs and pilot test the curriculum in selected schools. There are four thrust under Strategy V, namely: 1. Increasing access to updated biodiversity information and database systems, 2. Institutionalizing community-based biodiversity conservation education and research, 3. Harnessing traditional and alternative media to increase public awareness and support for biodiversity conservation, and 4. Encouraging and sustaining advocacy for biodiversity conservation.

Three programs are proposed under this strategy. These are the Biodiversity Conservation Awareness and Information for Local Communities Program, the Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation Education and Research Program, and the Value Added products and Alternative Sustainable Livelihood Development for Bioresources Dependent Communities Program. Three projects are identified under in the Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation Awareness and Information for Local Communities Program, which aims to build up people's appreciation of the values, attributes, and conservation approaches to biodiversity resources at the community level to ensure people's participation. Only one project is included under the Value Added Products and Alternative Sustainable Livelihood Development for Bioresources Dependent Communities Program, which aims to help local communities inhabiting biodiversity rich areas find and learn alternative sustainable livelihood and teach them skills to develop valueadded products such as commercial processing of wild fruits to produce various types of jams so they have incentives to maintain and protect the natural vegetation. A "menu" of options of proven successful livelihood activities will be offered with due consideration of traditional indigenous knowledge systems. Three thrusts have been identified for Strategy VI. These are: 1. Operationalizing specific country commitments made under the Convention on Biological Diversity and other similar agreements, 2. Creating institutions to oversee the international coordinated implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and 3. Strengthening linkages of local non-government organizations with international counterparts for biodiversity conservation. To fulfill our international commitments, programs and projects have to be developed and implemented, which the Subcommittee on Biodiversity under the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development is mandated to coordinate and oversee. However, the effectiveness of the Subcommittee to fulfill its mandate is hampered by limited membership and insufficient and transient staff. There is a need to expand the membership of the subcommittee to include other stakeholders and the addition of permanent support staff. There is a need for an institutional framework to oversee the implementation of international agreements that will conserve biodiversity in a coordinated manner. An example is the proposal to establish an ASEAN Regional Center for Biodiversity Conservation to be hosted by the Philippines. At the 1992

Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the International NGO Forum (INGOF) was organized by Philippine NGOs by the holding of parallel talks among NGOs from all over the world. These linkages should be enhanced to promote inter-country peopleto-people contact and cooperation for biodiversity conservation. The center will serve as the central coordinating body of ASEAN member countries on studies related to the conservation of biodiversity, formulation and implementation of action plans for such, generation of ecological database and information, and the conduct of research and development, training and extension, and consultancy and advisory services.

The Kyoto Protocol treaty was negotiated in December 1997 at the city of Kyoto, Japan and came into force February 16th, 2005. "The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."

Montreal Protocol, officially the Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, treaty signed on Sept. 16, 1987, at Montreal by 25 nations; 168 nations are now parties to the accord. The protocol set limits on the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and related substances that release chlorine or bromine to the ozone layer of the atmosphere. On the basis of increasing scientific knowledge about the effects of CFCs and halons on the ozone layer, the original protocol has been amended several times. At meetings in London (1990), Copenhagen (1992), Vienna (1995), and Montreal (1997) amendments were adopted that were designed to speed up the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances; not all parties to the main protocol are parties to these amendments. The production and consumption of halons was phased out by Jan. 1, 1994, and of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and hydrobromofluorocarbons by Jan. 1, 1996, subject to an exception for agreed essential users. Methyl bromide was to be phased out by 2005 but a number of users of the chemical have won temporary exceptions from the ban, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are to be phased out by 2020. (Phaseout dates are later for developing countries.)

Under the protocol, the ozone-depleting potential, or ODP, of any substance is measured with respect to an equal mass of CCl3F, or CFC-11, which is assigned a value of 1.0. Most other CFCs have ODPs that range from about 0.5 to about 1.3. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which are being used as transitional replacements (until 2020) for CFCs in refrigeration, have ODPs that are generally less than 0.5. Hydrofluorocarbons, which are also replacing CFCs as refrigerants, have ODPs of zero. Ozone-depleting potentials are based on existing scientific knowledge and are to be reviewed and revised periodically.
The Brundtland Commission, formally the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), known by the name of its Chair Gro Harlem Brundtland, was convened by the United Nations in 1983. The commission was created to address growing concern "about the accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural resources and the consequences of that deterioration for economic and social development." In establishing the commission, the UN General Assembly recognized that environmental problems were global in nature and determined that it was in the common interest of all nations to establish policies for sustainable development.

Agenda 21
Agenda 21, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. The Agenda deals with both the pressing problems of today and the need to prepare for the challenges of the next century. It recognizes that sustainable development is primarily the responsibility of governments, and this will require national strategies, plans and policies. The efforts of nations need to be linked by international cooperation through such organizations as the United Nations. The broadest public participation, and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged. The objectives of Agenda 21 require substantial assistance for developing countries. They need this additional support to cover the incremental costs of actions to deal with global environmental problems, and to accelerate sustainable development. Money is also needed to allow international bodies to implement the recommendations of Agenda 21.

Philippine Agenda 21
Philippine Agenda 21 is the nation's blueprint for sustainable development. In concreting the vision, it describes a path for individuals, families, households and communities; an action plan for each ecosystem (coastal/marine, freshwater, upland, lowland, and urban); and across ecosystems in consideration of the interaction of the various lifescapes and landscapes found therein. The path is grounded on respect and active advocacy for the empowerment of the various social groupings of society to manage the economy, critical resources, society and culture, politics and governance and in the arena of foreign relations. Philippine Agenda 21 advocates a fundamental shift in development thinking and approach. It departs from traditional conceptual frameworks that emphasize sector-based and macro concerns. Philippine Agenda 21 promotes harmony and achieves sustainability by emphasizing.

A scale of intervention that is primarily area-based. The national and global policy environment
builds upon and supports area-based initiatives.

Integrated island development approaches where applicable . This recognizes the archipelagic
character of the Philippines which includes many small island provinces.

People and integrity of nature at the center of development initiatives. This implies the

strengthening of roles, relationships, and interactions between and among stakeholders in government, civil society, labor and business. Basic sectors have an important role to play in achieving equity and managing the ecosystems that sustain life. PA 21 envisions a better quality of life for all Filipinos through the development of a just, moral and creative, spiritual, economically vibrant, caring, diverse yet cohesive society characterized by appropriate productivity, participatory and democratic processes, and living in harmony and within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the integrity of creation. PA 21 was adopted on 26 September 1996, with the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 399 by then President Fidel V. Ramos which identified the roles of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) and each sector in the operationalization of PA 21. The action agenda is based on the imperatives of the current national situation and emerging landscape for sustainable development. PA 21 is a dynamic document that will continue to evolve as new challenges and opportunities emerge, as the level of consensus continue to deepen in the Philippine society, as the Filipinos attempt to solidify the framework, as the government continue to refine the processes, and as the Filipinos strive to widen and enrich their understanding of each other to pave the way for new modes of collaboration.

Local Agenda 21
The PA 21 emphasizes the importance of localization as a strategy for its implementation. It defines localization as a process that involves the formulation of local sustainable development action agenda, and the establishment of local SD councils to implement the said agenda. PA 21 sees that localization will ensure that SD takes root in each region, province, city, and municipality. On the 25th day of January 1999, Memorandum Order No. 47 was issued by the Office of the President to strengthen the operationalization and localization of PA 21 and to monitor its implementation. A number of regions has already formulated their own Local Agenda 21, serving as the region's guide and springboard for the formulation by the local governments, regional line agencies, and all other entities of their respective Sustainable Development Agenda.

Business Agenda 21

In 1998, the Philippine Business for Environment (PBE) was commissioned to consolidate the various medium and long-term initiatives of industry associations into an integrated plan to be called Philippine Business Agenda 21. This was under the project of the the Philippine government called Private Sector Participation in Managing the Environment (PRIME). Business Agenda 21 or BA21 was completed and released in May 2000. It reflects the business sectors response to Philippine Agenda 21 which provides the broad vision and implementing strategies and parameters for sustainable development in the country. BA21 is a consolidated plan specifically developed by the business sector consistent with and in support of Philippine Agenda 21.